March 1, 2012

He grew up in West Los Angeles, surrounded by liberals, father-in-law Orson Bean, the comedian. Sometime during the 1990s, the early nineties, Breitbart had an awakening. He was constantly questioning what was all around him, which was really extreme liberalism, and he became, as many of you in the audience know, a bulldog....

Wouldn't you think that real life journalists would applaud Breitbart's efforts to expose government corruption and media bias? I mean, what does the media claim to exist to do? To hold the powerful accountable! "Speak truth to power," is that the phrase? Well, the mainstream media has become part of the power. When that power is held by the Democrat Party, the mainstream media covers up the corruption. He was exposing it. He did more and greater work than Woodward and Bernstein! He should have been one of their heroes. But he wasn't. He should have been given the same kind of hero worship that Woodward and Bernstein have gotten. And unlike the work of Woodward and Bernstein, Breitbart's investigations were actually truthful.

Read the whole thing. (Or listen to it, if you've got a rushlimbaugh.com membership, which is what I use to keep up with the show via podcast.)

My co-worker is listening to yesterday's Hugh Hewitt broadcast on the Hughniverse, with Andrew Breitbart as one of the guests. It's probably the last interview he did before his demise, so it'll be interested to hear what they talk about. Right now, Hugh's spending an entire hour on Davy Jones and the Monkees.

I agree with Rush here - what really did Woodward and Bernstein really do? By the time that they broke their story, were they really speaking truth to power? Or, were they just pushing the accepted wisdom of what we now call the MSM?

Oh, I think that in their time and place they may have spoken truth to power. But in the end--decades later--their legacy has became what they fought. It's classic ouroboros--closing the loop as it were.

What made Breitbart rare and valuable was not his courage and intelligence. Such assets are not uncommon among conservatives. It was his showmanship and sense of the dramatic that set him apart. I don't know why this is so, but the people who know how to flash and dramatize their lives and causes are almost always liberals if not outright radicals. It's rare that one can find a conservative with the drama skills sufficient to upstage a liberal. He played on their court with their ball and won the point.

Hewitt's Breitbart interview was fairly boring. Picking up the last segment's Monkees thread, we learn Breitbart's favorite concerts ever were The The and New Order. Then he spends time talking about the David Shuster/James O'Keefe libel lawsuit. He congratulates himself on forcing MSNBC to issue a retraction for calling O'Keefe a convicted felon and for having David Shuster fired. Shuster then worked for Media Matters, which Breitbart said was out to destroy him, and now works for Gore's CurrentTV, which is also out to destroy him. But Shuster never worked for God--that we know of--who ultimately destroyed him. St. Peter will read off a list of Breitbart's sins and transgressions and probably end up in court.

Fairly typical Breitbart fare: 'I'm awesome; the Left is out to destroy me and my proteges but anytime they attempt it they end up in court fighting libel charges; have they no shame?'

"And this is where it becomes difficult to honor the Roman injunction to speak no ill of the dead. It’s difficult for me to assess Breitbart’s impact upon American media and American politics as anything other than poisonous. When one of the leading media figures of the day achieves his success by his giddy disdain for truth and fairness—when one of our leading political figures offers to his admirers a politics inflamed by rage and devoid of ideas—how to withhold a profoundly negative judgment on his life and career?"

Andy R. Actually all Briebart did was pull open the curtain on some poorly concealed criminal activities. What journalists are supposed to do. That aside he helped Drudge Report and Huffington Post get started and had created his own media business. You?

Lincoln Steffens, Beatrice & Sidney Webb, Upton Sinclair, Theodore White, I.F. Stone: There's a long list of muckraking journalists whose keen powers of observation failed them when they examined Communists and Communist states. In any other profession this would be an unerasable black mark against their name, and more worthy practitioners of the craft would struggle to find out why his sainted ancestors were so mistaken in their beliefs. Not so with journalists. All of those listed above have had legions of angels carry them to their rest. For Breitbart the best they can say is that he wasn't too vicious.

Michael I don't begrudge that. I was merely responding to Rush Limbaugh's assertion, which in headline and blog format seemed incredibly infantile. But I don't pin Rush on everybody, I assume he speaks for himself unless someone says "Ditto that."

As for hero-worship and the left and Che - like I grant Rush and everyone else, I speak strictly for myself. I'm not big on the hero-worship from any one to anyone.

The unthinking mob that is modern liberalism continues to project its true values for all to see. HatredBigotryTyrannyCorruption FraudulenceHypocrisyDeceitIt's all means to an end. (Not necessarily the one you had in mind, of course. You know, the one where you get to live in state-sponsored guaranteed fat city for life. Nevermind that, though. That's not important at all.)Please. Continue.Go right ahead with yourMoney grabbingTax cheatingConstitution shreddingSlander spewingPower hoggingRumor mongeringDouble standard bearingways.You're on the record. Thanks to Andrew Breitbart, and a lot of other people, the mainstream media ain't so mainstream anymore. Your lies are not as effective as they once were.We see you.A lot of other people will see you.The truth will out.

In time, Andrew Breitbart might have aged into greater self-control and a higher concept of public service. Premature death deprived him of the chance at redemption often sought and sometimes found by people who have done wrong in their lives and work.

While Obama says "hit back twice as hard"..Frum says turn the other cheek and apologise.

Thankfully Frum has it backwards.. The reality is that as people age, they become more conservative.

"And this is where it becomes difficult to honor the Roman injunction to speak no ill of the dead. It’s difficult for me to assess Breitbart’s impact upon American media and American politics as anything other than poisonous. When one of the leading media figures of the day achieves his success by his giddy disdain for truth and fairness—when one of our leading political figures offers to his admirers a politics inflamed by rage and devoid of ideas—how to withhold a profoundly negative judgment on his life and career?"

Tell us again, Hatman, how hateful Conservatives are.

As is the case with common sense, common courtesy is most uncommon - at least on the Left.

And, as was discussed on another thread, show us a couple of examples of Breitbart's "giddy disdain for truth and fairness".

I know, it's not fair he exposed all the Lefties' lies as well as he did.

Andy R. you stupid little ghoul, you don't get to pretend that you aren't happy he is dead.

If a man (and I use that term loosely for garbage such as yourself) posts a quote verbatim with no commentary addressing the content then it is safe to assume that they agree with it (especially when it conforms to their general political bent).

The gist of the article you linked to was that Breitbart had a negative effect on the political scene and that his was a poisonous influence. When one posts such a statement, especially immediately after his death, they are basically saying that they are happy that man is dead.

Thank you to all who commented on it. I went back and added the clip from The Daily Show when Jon Stewart declared Breitbart the "most honest" person in the Shirley Sherrod case, as well as links to lots more. (It should clarify for the libs why Andrew was the good guy in these episodes, I think, even while he was against them,...)

Adam, I also thought Frum's writings on Breitbart showed what he did well, and where, in the paragraph you quoted, he went too far in creating our present divided culture. . He had great energy for attacking his "enemies" and sometime hit the mark, but I suspect this fire turned inward on him and he bore the results.

Yes Stewart said Brietbart was the most honest because he admitted that his goal is to bring down the "institutional left" and as Stewart showed he snookered folks with editing that left out the complete example Sherrod was trying to make-- nothing admirable in that Crack.

I think that definittion of the free press is the press that is always in the opposition to the power, to the establishment and to the consensus. And in this sense Andrew Braibart was a true free journalist, one of the greatest.

The media bills him as "conservative blogger", I don't think he is really conservative, considering that the media and the rest of "intellectual" establishment is so overwhelmingly left wing.

Seeing how media covers up for Obama I wonder if Woodward and Bernstein would do what they did, if Nixon was a democrate. And whether there were democrate presidents that did the same and/or worst.

Yes Stewart said Brietbart was the most honest because he admitted that his goal is to bring down the "institutional left" and as Stewart showed he snookered folks with editing that left out the complete example Sherrod was trying to make-- nothing admirable in that Crack.

Bullshit - did you even watch the clip? Stewart MOCKED their claim they were "snookered". Stewart said they were stupid. And yes, it is admirable to expose that.

Unfortunately, as your twisted reading of the clip shows, liberals generally are too blindingly stupid to understand that about themselves.

I mean seriously - except for experiencing an extreme case of cognitive dissonance - how can you watch that clip and STILL come away claiming they got "snookered" when Stewart makes jokes, specifically about how they WEREN'T, the centerpiece of his bit?

Do yourself a favor: Go with the cognitive dissonance because the alternatives are worse,...

He seemed to be the last of an old breed that wants the truth more than they want one ideology to win.

He communicated a loud case of what the scripture calls the spirit of Elijah, also seen in John the Baptist. Like them he proclaimed a feisty message to everyone to repent, and he would not be silenced. He was Jewish, of course.

"Yes Stewart said Brietbart was the most honest because he admitted that his goal is to bring down the "institutional left" and as Stewart showed he snookered folks with editing that left out the complete example Sherrod was trying to make-- nothing admirable in that Crack."

You see, this is what drives conservatives nuts. We see the clip and see a government official whose job it is to remedy racism admit on camera that she was racist in attitude and action. We also see a crowd cheering that notion. Sure, there's the redemption story and the left reaction of "OMG, Sherrod's a racist no more! Rejoice!" but seriously?

Can you imagine if you had a DoJ official up there saying "Yeah, when I was a street cop we beat up n*ggers all the time, just taught them lessons so they'd respect the white man. But then one day I had a change of heart... ." Would the liberals be cheering that on as a terrific story of overcoming racism?

Also, the whole clip was there from the beginning--it's not Breitbart's fault that people have short attention spans.

Er, someone who is feeling discomfort? Someone who wants a bit of fresh air? We all don't run to the emergency room each time we feel a bit off. Sometime the big one doesn't give you much warning or time to assess.

Just to be clear, I sometimes post quotations I disagree with to draw attention to them. Don't assume everything I post I agree with. This being Althouse's blog, I'm not sure how this idea is foreign to you. For instance, if Santorum wins another state I'll probably post the man-on-dog quote, without comment, not because I agree with it but because it's so repulsive that it's absurdity should be self-evident.

I'm not big on absurd displays of anger or celebration when someone dies. But I also don't think we need to be exclusively nice and deferential when people die. I think Frum's article did a good job of laying out that sort of dynamic, and his sadness that Breitbart didn't have a chance to redeem himself was especially poignant.

More importantly, we don't need to engage in hagiography of Breitbart. We also don't need to worry about offending his relatives, as obviously none of them are going to be reading this Althouse thread. The specific paragraph I quoted was one part of the post that pointed out some of the flaws in Andrew's approach that we should be aware of when we consider our feelings towards him and his legacy.

It is despicable behavior. It's also human. It's not a trait of the left or right or Christian or atheist or male or female. It's a trait of ALL sides share some of the time.

If you think ONLY the left says despicable things about people who have died then you either have blinders on or you don't read much outside of your political demographic.

Personally I haven't read many despicable things about Breitbart because I don't frequent leftist sites. I did read David Frum's obit and it was pretty harsh toward Breibart [harsher than I would be] and Frum is not a leftist.

Anyway, the point is the left takes their pot shots and when Michael Moore or Jimmy Carter or Noam Chomsky passes a good number of folks on the right will say despicable things. But I don't care. That is expected!

It's a human trait that affects some out there on all sides. Why does it matter? Haters gotta hate. Teach your children not to hate. That's all anyone can do. [Shrug].

Just to be clear, I sometimes post quotations I disagree with to draw attention to them. Don't assume everything I post I agree with.

I assume that everything you post is posted for the sole purpose of getting an outraged reaction from conservatives. Trolling, in the classic sense of the term -- posting for the sole purpose of generating outrage.

So yes, if you ever post a remark that the average right-of-center person wouldn't immediately regard as crazy, stupid, or evil, you can rest assured nobody thinks you believe it.

I assume that everything you post is posted for the sole purpose of getting an outraged reaction from conservatives.

Don't be silly. I genuinely think gay people should be treated as equals. And that Perry is dumb and Bachmann is crazy. And that Romney acts like a robot trained to act like a human. And that religion is a fairy tale. I'm not merely saying those things to annoy you.

Are you that surprised there are people out there in the world that believe these things?

Yet another dead sainted Kennedy. A sordid sot, an obese drunk, a whoremonger and killer. Yeah, he will be missed.

I post one paragraph from a David Frum article that is attempting to given an honest reflection on Breitbart and his legacy and a bunch of commenters flip the fuck out. It's nothing compared to those quotes from the Kennedy thread.

My take on the Breitbart - Sherrod kerfluffle is that Breitbart was after the NAACP reaction to that part of Sherrod's speech, and the MSM took after him as if he had attacked Sherrod personally and her entire life and career.Kind of as if I had criticized some people's reaction to the Professor's headgear on some occasion, and the commentariat hereon wrathfully arose to defend her character and professional accomplishments.

Oh, for heaven's sake...Stewart is giving credit to Breitbart being an honest and up-front hitman for his ideological objectives, (rather than pretending to care only for "the truth"), not for having been "the good guy" or "truth-teller" in the Sherrod debacle. ("I gotta give the guy credit...he's a scumbag, but he's upfront about it.")

Stewart's mockery of the NAACP and the Obama administration for having been "snookered" is not to say they hadn't misunderstood what Sherrod had actually said or been misled by Breitbart's video. He's mocking them for having acted rashly in firing Sherrod so precipitously, for not having first investigated the circumstances, spoken to Sherrod, and looked at the whole video. He's mocking them for being cowards, and for their cowardice having blinded them and robbed them of judiciousness. He's mocking them for letting themselves off the hook so glibly, so easily, for having destroyed this woman's career and reputation...just because they had been "snookered."

The clip does nothing to make Breitbart's look good, it just makes the Obama administration and the NAACP look worse, which was part of Stewart's point.

Yes Crack your are right, he mocked the "institutional left" (government) for jumping on the edited clips and firing Sherrod without checking the source- But the comment that Breitbart is the "most honest" amongst the actors is rather ironic. After all the show started with an edited version of the Sherrod speech pushing it to even more extreme views than Breitbart's editing constructed--thus reflecting on a certain dishonesty. As a result, his mention of "honesty" on anyone's part in this farce, including Fox and other news sources, paints all the actors in a negative light-- including Breitbart.

If you think ONLY the left says despicable things about people who have died then you either have blinders on or you don't read much outside of your political demographic.

Of course I never said that.

But it is funny that those of the same political stripe who were calling for a "new civility" not so long ago, who are endlessly referring to themselves as "tolerant" rush to the Internet to say nasty things about a person who they disagree with politically as soon as they find out he died.

So what you're saying is the left really isn't tolerant or never believed in a "new civility," right?

Stewart MOCKED their claim they were "snookered". Stewart said they were stupid. And yes, it is admirable to expose that.

You really are on crack, aren't you. That you took away from that clip that Stewart found what Breitbart did in any way admirable, is a completely, shall we say Breitbartian, interpretation of the clip.

Yes, he was criticizing the administration, but for believing Breitbart, and not checking the entire, unedited tape. His point was that Breitbart boasted he intended to bring down the "institutional left" yet they fired Sherrod based on Breitbart's extremely biased and misleading "evidence"

They fired Sherrod to deflect any attention being paid to "Pigford II", which is understandable enough, but was not what Breitbart was aiming for. He was just after the NAACP crowd at that meeting, indeed a part of the "institutional left."

JaySo what you're saying is the left really isn't tolerant or never believed in a "new civility," right?

If the very same people who called for civility are now the ones saying despicable things then you are right. But if you are using a generalized view of the left - some of which include those asking for civility and some of those who are saying despicable things - then no.

I would guess most all comments on Democratic Underground about Breibart are despicable today. But they don't represent me or all liberals. Just like Storm Front doesn't represent all conservatives. But I know people who think they do. Not logical.

Don't be silly. I genuinely think gay people should be treated as equals.

What you think isn't actually of much interest to me, so I'll pass on deciding if I believe you.

What I do find interesting is that while you have never previously written the words "gay people should be treated as equals" (or even mentioned "equal rights"), you *have* taken the time to say that opponents of gay marriage are equivalent to the KKK.

Perhaps the best example was when Prop 8 was overturned and you devoted all your time to crowing about how happy you were... that conservatives were pissed off. Normal people were happy about the improvement in gay rights, but not you. :)

Of course words from Rush are often idiotic. Here's one also from his radio show today:

LIMBAUGH: So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.

Then he went on to completely lie to support his 'joke':

[She] went before a Congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them.

So is this someone who represents all conservatives? Nevermind the fact that he doesn't even comprehend why Miss Fluke went before Congress. He just likes to bash women who aren't conservative. Typical.

I would guess most all comments on Democratic Underground about Breibart are despicable today. But they don't represent me or all liberals. Just like Storm Front doesn't represent all conservatives.

Hysterical.

Yes, because as we all know the people on the Democratic Underground, that would be "Democratic" as in the Democratic party, are like totally the same as Storm Front which has no connection to conservatives, conservative Web sites, Republicans or Republican candidates.

"[She] went before a Congressional committee and said she’s having so much sex she’s going broke buying contraceptives and wants us to buy them."

Exaggerations in a joke count as "lies" now? What Fluke actually claimed was that 40% of her fellow students were "struggling financially" to pay for their own birth control. $3000 each, supposedly.

A decent call girl runs around $300 an hour. If Ms. Fluke wants $3000 to support her sex life, I'll need to see a photo and make some room in my schedule.

Or, you know, she could keep her legs together until she has enough to pay for her own fun. Hell, I remember having to forgo sex in college because I didn't have condoms handy -- it was no fun but somehow I lived through it.

So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here’s the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex. We want something for it. We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.

Storm Front which has no connection to conservatives, conservative Web sites, Republicans or Republican candidates.

From Wikipedia:

"Don Black feels that the establishment of white pride as a special interest group within the Republican Party is a crucial strategy."

(Don Black is the founder, and current webmaster, of the Stormfront internet forum. In August 2008 Black's 19-year-old son Derek was elected to one of 111 seats on the Palm Beach County, Fla., Republican committee.)

Storm Front which has no connection to conservatives, conservative Web sites, Republicans or Republican candidates.

From Wikipedia:

"The Don and Derek Black Show is a radio program broadcast five times a week from the Lake Worth, Florida-based radio station WPBR-AM. Although WPBR has a large Haitian-American audience, the radio radio show promotes the ideology of white nationalism. Derek Black is the son of Don Black, founder of the large white nationalist discussion forum Stormfront.org.

The first broadcast was in February 2010; the featured guest for the debut episode of the program was Gordon Lee Baum, cofounder of the Council of Conservative Citizens. The Council of Conservative Citizens (CofCC) is an American political organization that supports a large variety of conservative and paleoconservative causes in addition to white nationalism, and white separatism."

So Derek Black was elected to a seat on the Palm Beach County Republican committee AND he hosts a radio show (which promotes the ideology of white nationalism) with his father Don Black, founder of Stormfront.org. In addition, Stormfront.org was initially an online bulletin board to support a Republican senate candidate.

Remember when Sen. Paul Wellstone died? I do, and I remember the news of Wellstone's death being discussed on this blog.

What I remember most was reading the first snarky comment about Wellstone and how happy the conservatives must be that he died. That comment was rapidly followed by many others, including mine, that proved the opposite.

The conservatives on this blog were without exception polite in offering their condolences to Wellstone's family. There was no anger, no laughing, no name-calling, no cheering, just human decency in offering sympathy to the family of a man who died young.

Reading this thread about the death of Andrew Brietbart, especially the comments by the usual liberals, makes me wonder what it is about (some) liberals that makes them lack basic human decency.

So is this someone who represents all conservatives? Nevermind the fact that he doesn't even comprehend why Miss Fluke went before Congress. He just likes to bash women who aren't conservative. Typical.

She whined that women she knew were having trouble paying for birth control, spending $3000 over three years on it (which is baffling since it costs a fraction of that with no insurance).

If I am going to forced to pay for some woman's birth control, then unless she has some evidence that she needs it for one or two rare medical conditions, then she is using my money to have sex.

Expecting something in return is fair. The girl would be a hooker, just that she takes money from LOTS of Johns, not just one.

A Republican candidate for US Congress named Arthur Jones from Illinois has denied that the Holocaust ever occurred. The guy is a nut and, yes, a Republican. Look it up....

So, yes, we can play this game all day. But we don't need to label all political affiliated blogs with all people who call themselves liberal or conservative. Note I didn't say Storm Front represented all conservatives. That was the point of mentioning them. However, last I checked Storm Front was not made up of Obama supporters. They are of the Pat Buchanan conservative stripe.

But if you want to hop on over to Gateway Pundit you can find plenty of idiotic conservatives that you might agree are truly conservative in your definition. But I won't go so far as to say you are as dumb as they are because you are on this site, which is more moderate. #;^)

If sex is an instinct, why is rape a crime? We don't criminally punish other animals for their instincts.

Is it worth arguing that sex isn't instinctual?

If you cannot control your instincts you forfeit your right to be considered human. We're thinking creatures. If she has an uncontrollable urge to spread her legs for anything with an erection she needs to be in a hospital, not a university.

In reality, of course, it isn't an "instinct". It is a conscious choice, and one she makes not because she has to have sex, but because she wants to have sex. I, on the other hand, don't give a rat's ass if she ever gets laid again for the rest of her life, so she can damned well buy her own pills.

And speaking of bad memories, I see Willard (at 4:16pm) has shown that edutcher's memory about the nature of comments on this blog about the passing of Ted Kennedy was a little cloudy. But that's no surprise.

The link provided by Willard at 4:16pm shows you got it wrong ("the conservatives on this blog were without exception polite in offering their condolences") even if you traded Kennedy's name for Wellstone's. In the words of that great American conservative, Rick Perry, oops.

The standard has been set to rightly call a person a villain for leaving a women to drown, while using his money and political connections to protect himself. That is the true Kennedy legacy, that he killed someone and hid behind a wall of lawyers and politicians.

Breitbart exposed frauds like him and the left rejoices in his death because the standard for the left is that it's okay to be a drunk killer using political clout to get out of that jam, you know, as long as you're a lefty. Breitbart didn't kill anyone, then try to cover it up. He merely exposed the left.

Getting drunk and killing totally acceptable and that man deserves the respect of the left.

Exposing the lies of the left and having never killed anyone is unforgivable, right willard?

Please note the irony of your statement especially with regards to Breitbart and his statements [tweets] about Ted Kennedy right after Kennedy died. I know a good many conservatives said nice things or nothing about Kennedy when he died. And I applaud their restraint. However, Breitbart was most definitely not one who held his tongue. He was pretty brutal. Maybe Kennedy deserved that and maybe not. But if human decency when someone dies is the norm you expect from people [and I do] then it's not something all conservatives can say they have done.

It is the height of idiocy and evil to try to create equations just from names.

Anyone can call anyone anything. Liberals are not actually into liberty. The Democratic Party actively attempts to block and erode Democratic principles.

There is no connection between the agenda of white supremacists and Stormfront and conservatives.

The actual agenda of Stormfront is the closest to that of the Democratic Party. The only difference is that Stormfront puts "whites" at the top of the heap, and the Democratic Party puts grievance identities at the top of the heap.

Other than that, the rhetoric, techniques, education methods, etc, are nearly identical.

So quit spreading your nonsense. Only a brainwashed fool would actually believe any of it. Which is why it is popular among liberals and Democrats, naturally.

And, by the way, since that's the way you think, your apology for your part the starvation deaths of 100+ million peasants last century is *not* accepted.

Ken states it correctly. You'll never understand lefties or the liberal trolls on this blog unless you understand one thing:

To the left Politics trumps everything.

They hate Andrew because he was conservative, they loved Kennedy because he was liberal. Its that simple. That Ted left a woman to die means nothing to them. That Andrew was an OK guy but a conservative, means nothing to them.

Exposing the lies of the left and having never killed anyone is unforgivable, right willard?

It's not my standard nor was I involved in setting it.

By all means, please yourself, but don't whine when others do the same.

Or, if you believe there's a set of universal rules that can be applied to determine when it's fair to post derogatory statements about a public figure who has just died, list them in detail. But whatever you do, stop the hypocritical whining.

" roesch/voltaire said...Adam, I also thought Frum's writings on Breitbart showed what he did well, and where, in the paragraph you quoted, he went too far in creating our present divided culture."

What plant does this fool live on? The left has intentionally fomented hatred in America for pushing 50 years, but Breitbart created our divided culture? I'm getting a vision of some 60s sheriff claiming blacks were content until outside agitators showed up.

I would honestly like to hear one of the Breitbart-haters explain how Breitbart was worse than Ted Kennedy.

I mean, Breitbart also celebrated the death of Osama bin Laden. Why not use that as precedent?

It seems to me that what people really hate about Andrew is simply that he wasn't on their side. He didn't do anything bad, he was just a loudmouthed libertarian/conservative journalist. Remember his full comment?

"I’ll shut my mouth for Carter. That’s just politics. Kennedy was a special pile of human excrement."

Personally I don't care if you badmouth Breitbart (although I do find it funny that so many public figures waited until he was safely dead to do so). I doubt he would have cared either, since he loved to mix it up with critics. But you might want to consider the distinction -- if you recognize one -- between "political rival" and "bad person".

Or, if you believe there's a set of universal rules that can be applied to determine when it's fair to post derogatory statements about a public figure who has just died, list them in detail.

Surely one doesn't need to cover every possible condition in order to think that "he personally killed an innocent woman and got away with it" qualifies?

What's the worst you can say about Breitbart -- that he edited video to make people look worse than they really were? Heck, what major news outlet hasn't? I mean, Tom Brokaw's a schmuck but I can't see dancing on his grave.

Ummm I didn't - if you mean me. But how funny that you then say that Storm Front is closer to Democrats. Ummm...okay. So it's alright for you to misread what I write to suit your thinking and then turn around and make the same claim you say I am making to suit your agenda. Hilarious. You ought to be a lawyer. Maybe you are?

By all means, please yourself, but don't whine when others do the same.

Of course, it's not the same. Calling a person a villain and excrement because that person left a woman to die is not the same as calling someone vile names for simply being conservative.

You can try to fool yourself all you want that bad mouthing Kennedy at his death is the same as bad mouthing Breitbart at his death, but the reality is that Kennedy and Breitbart as people were light years apart. In fact, one was a decent individual, though conservative. The other was an evil man, though a "liberal".

The left wants to lionize the killer because he was a lefty, while at the same time demonize the decent man because he was not a lefty.

@Revenant you and I and at least a handful of others are smart enough to know the Lib/Conserv dichotomy is a really inadequate way to categorize a lot of us at this date, and in this place. I'll respect that you aren't simply one-or-two dimensional if you'll do the same for me.

But if you're gonna say things like "Sure rape IS sex. It's just one person doesn't want it," I'm not gonna feel that bad about baiting you. Even with your plea for professional courtesy.

That said, Peace. I don't think you're a horrible human being who deserves to be handed over to your enemies. You're just a multi-dimensional being like me and a lot of cats and chicks out here.

When Kennedy died it wasn't calls to civility, it was demands that he be honored by passing legislation to which people were ideologically opposed.

It was immediate and constant... pass this bill in honor of Teddy Kennedy, blah blah blah...

It's one thing to figure he's dead and keep your "good riddance" to yourself. It's another to watch his death be turned into a political mandate that one mustn't oppose or you're being disrespectful of his wonderfulness.

So far as I know, there is no political ideology or religion that can totally redeem man's fallen nature. Just being conservative (or for that matter liberal) doesn't make a person a bad man. Breitbart was good at his job. He broke a number of big stories in such a way as to make them bigger stories. As someone with a conservative bias, I rooted for him. I don't think his private life was grossly unethical or we would have heard all about it. He was flashy and aggressive and tried to make himself the center of attention. I don't think that set him apart from any number of liberal reporters, but it was held against him......Are people so ideological that they cannot disapprove of both Newt Gingrich and Ted Kennedy?

You really are on crack, aren't you. That you took away from that clip that Stewart found what Breitbart did in any way admirable, is a completely, shall we say Breitbartian, interpretation of the clip.

Thank you [bows]

Yes, he was criticizing the administration, but for believing Breitbart, and not checking the entire, unedited tape. His point was that Breitbart boasted he intended to bring down the "institutional left" yet they fired Sherrod based on Breitbart's extremely biased and misleading "evidence"

What do you want? Me, or Brietbart, to lie about what he was? No, he was muckraker - and he was honest about it. There's nothing dishonorable about that because he wasn't bullshitting anyone. That's why Stewart said he was "honest" and he was right:

Lyndon Larouche, who is considerably less obscure than Don Black, was a Democrat.

I wish there was a relevant point to this comment. No sane person denies that unsavory individuals and groups sometimes form connections to mainstream political parties. Except of course for the guy who wrote this:

Storm Front which has no connection to conservatives, conservative Web sites, Republicans or Republican candidates.

Yep, Kennedy killing a woman or really any liberal doing anything bad, evil, or repugnant, simply "blah blah blah", amaright willard? Why focus on the evils deeds of Kennedy. Just "blah blah blah" it away, so you can focus on the really important things, like hurling vile insults at people who haven't done anything worse than express opinions different from the leftist narrative, right? It's really all very simple.

I don't know why there is so much silly bickering about something that should be obvious to everyone: in the immediate aftermath of the death of a public figure, be respectful of the feelings of people who are grieving.

Just "blah blah blah" it away, so you can focus on the really important things, like hurling vile insults at people who haven't done anything worse than express opinions different from the leftist narrative, right?

So Derek Black was elected to a seat on the Palm Beach County Republican committee AND he hosts a radio show (which promotes the ideology of white nationalism) with his father Don Black, founder of Stormfront.org. In addition, Stormfront.org was initially an online bulletin board to support a Republican senate candidate.

Except that "Republican senate candidate" started running for office as a Democrat in 1975.

He also ran for President as a Democrat just prior to the bulletin board being launched.

"I don't know why there is so much silly bickering about something that should be obvious to everyone: in the immediate aftermath of the death of a public figure, be respectful of the feelings of people who are grieving."

In the aftermath of the death of a public figure, it's offensive to hoist the body on a pole to lead a political parade to demand that laws be passed in honor of the corpse.

"I am baiting you. I'm not baiting you because you're a conservative, I'm baiting you for your insistence that "Rape is sex."

Stubbornly sticking to a bad idea because you're too proud to take it back isn't really a conservative or liberal value. It's ignorance."

True, it's not conservative or liberal.

But rape is sex. That it is a violation doesn't make it not sex.

I have no idea how you and Rev got into this argument, Willard, but he's right and you're wrong. Certainly you're familiar with something like "a man is human, all humans are men" or "a dog is a mammal, all mammals are dogs."

I might agree with you had you insisted that rape is not (usually) about sexual attraction, or any number of other distinctions that define rape, but it isn't rape, is it, unless there is sexual violation of one sort or another. If there isn't a sexual violation then it's just assault or something else. Rape is a subset of sex and if there isn't sex it isn't rape.

But that hardly for a moment means that rape is love making or that sex is rape.

So, no, this isn't a conservative/liberal thing... it's a "I don't get to change the meaning of words because something is an icky idea" thing.

So, no, this isn't a conservative/liberal thing... it's a "I don't get to change the meaning of words because something is an icky idea" thing.

You're right. But it is about the lefts attempt to hijack language and change the signifier, in this case sex, and turn it to their own purposes and then marginalizing you for not participating in the new usage.

phx uses the word "sex" as shorthand for "consensual sex," a practice which is commonplace nowadays and quite clear from the context of his remark. phx is specifically not saying that every imaginable form of sexual contact (e.g., rape, bestiality, etc...) is an instinct. phx's meaning is perfectly clear in context.

I can't take responsibility for Rev's misunderstanding on this point. He just got this one wrong. Unfortunately so did you, and so did Rusty.

And yet you called Rush a "perv" for pointing out the absurdity Sandra Fluke. She does want others to subsidize her sex life. Rush pointed out that absurdity saying that if others have to pay for, they should benefit from it too. Of course it's absurd to make her post videos of her sex life for all to see, but it's just as absurd to make people pay for her sex life.

The absurdity of Fluke's claim is the point. And yet, from these statements you claim Rush is a perv, then have the audacity to claim you don't hurl vile insults and that you're not a hater.

So, no, this isn't a conservative/liberal thing... it's a "I don't get to change the meaning of words because something is an icky idea" thing.

Heh! I'll always cherish the moment when a college professor acquaintance of mine argued that display of Confederate flags could legally be barred because such display constituted a "physical assault" on black people.

phx uses the word "sex" as shorthand for "consensual sex," a practice which is commonplace nowadays and quite clear from the context of his remark. phx is specifically not saying that every imaginable form of sexual contact (e.g., rape, bestiality, etc...) is an instinct. phx's meaning is perfectly clear in context.

If phx meant "consensual sex" when he said "sex", his claim that it is an instinct is hilariously wrong. Consent requires (a) the capacity for reason and (b) agreement between two minds, and thus cannot be an instinct.

Now it could be that in addition to redefining "sex", he also wanted to redefine "instinct" to mean "an action which is consciously chosen but instinctively desired". But if that's what he meant then he can't claim what's-her-face needs birth control pills because of her "instincts". She needs them because she can't *control* her instincts. :)

The great irony is that non-consensual sex is actually much closer to an instinct than consensual sex is. That's why humans have moral systems in place; so people don't just take the sex they want from weaker people.

If phx meant "consensual sex" when he said "sex", his claim that it is an instinct is hilariously wrong.

Changing the argument to quarrel over the definition of "instinct" instead of "sex" is an improvement but still overlooks the context of phx's comment. It's clear that phx means that desire to have consensual sex has a biological basis.

P.S. I'm not going to argue about how "instinct" is defined by various scientific disciplines.

The great irony is that non-consensual sex is actually much closer to an instinct than consensual sex is.

Apparently not. The reproductive behavior of nonhuman animals shows that the great majority of matings involves mate choice by the female.

Thanks for admitting to being dishonest flame thrower by labeling Rush a "perv" when you understood very well that Rush's point was to highlight the absurdity of Fluke, despite denying that you're a hater or that you throw around vile insults.